Study of diagnostic accuracy of Fagan’s two-step nomogram in increasing the value of predictive tools for prostate cancer: application of specific spatial distribution of positive/negative bioptic cores to predict extracapsular extension
Tóm tắt
Prostate cancer (PC) represents the second most frequent cancer in the male population worldwide. It is mandatory to have a very accurate staging to choice the best possible treatment. To test the possibility of improving the performance of Partin’s tables in predicting the pathological staging of PC by introducing bioptic parameters through an innovative statistic tool (Fagan’s two-step nomogram). We prospectivelly collected data of all 1048 consecutive patients undergoing saturation 24-core transrectal prostate biopsy. Then, in eligible 94 patients, we compared the prediction of presence/absence of extracapsular extension of neoplasm (EPE+/−), with pathological assessment of invasion through (pseudo)capsule in the prostatectomy specimens. Starting from the probability of EPE− (pre-test probability, calculated with formula “100%-risk of EPE+”), we used Fagan’s nomogram to examine the diagnostic sensitivity (DSe) and specificity (DSp) of negative “lateral” bioptic cores. We specifically analyzed the status of “lateral” cores in each side (94 patients × 2 sides = 188 sides). “Lateral” cores were negative in 42.5% of sides (80/188) with a DSe and DSp of 91.7 and 45.4%, respectively. In these sides, the mean probability of EPE+ according to Partin’s tables was 21.6%. With Fagan’s nomogram, the post-test probability of EPE+ when all “lateral” cores were negative was 14.1%, with a substantial gain of 7.5%. The spatial distribution of bioptic positive cores allowed us to demonstrate the role Fagan’s nomogram in increasing the accuracy of already existing, predictive tools for PC. This pioneering study may justify the use of the above nomogram in testing “local” predictive parameters in combination with pre-existing nomograms.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Noale M, Maggi S, Artibani W et al (2017) Pros-IT CNR: an Italian prostate cancer monitoring project. Aging Clin Exp Res 29:165–172
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71:618–629
Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T et al (2008) Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy. Urology 71:191–195
Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW et al (2010) Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 13:71–77
Scattoni V, Raber M, Capitanio U et al (2011) The optimal rebiopsy prostatic scheme depends on patient clinical characteristics: results of a recursive partitioning analysis based on a 24-core systematic scheme. Eur Urol 60:834–841
Walz J, Graefen M, Chun FK-H et al (2006) High incidence of prostate cancer detected by saturation biopsy after previous negative biopsy series. Eur Urol 50:498–505
Schröder F, Kattan MW (2008) The comparability of models for predicting the risk of a positive prostate biopsy with prostate-specific antigen alone: a systematic review. Eur Urol 54:274–290
Djavan B, Susani M, Bursa B et al (1999) Predictability and significance of multifocal prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy specimen. Tech Urol 5:139–142
Sebo TJ, Bock BJ, Cheville JC et al (2000) The percent of cores positive for cancer in prostate needle biopsy specimens is strongly predictive of tumor stage and volume at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 163:174–178
Mouraviev V, Mayes JM, Sun L et al (2007) Prostate cancer laterality as a rationale of focal ablative therapy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Cancer 110:906–910
Ohori M, Scardino PT (2002) Localized prostate cancer. Curr Probl Surg 39:833–957
Ploussard G, Agamy MA, Alenda O et al (2011) Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate-specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy in adjuvant treatment-naive patients. BJU Int 107:1748–1754
Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN et al (1997) Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 277:1445–1451
Caraguel CG, Vanderstichel R (2013) The two-step Fagan’s nomogram: ad hoc interpretation of a diagnostic test result without calculation. Evid Based Med 18:125–128
Fagan TJ (1975) Letter: nomogram for Bayes theorem. N Engl J Med 293:257
Dohoo I, Martin W, Stryhn H (2012) Methods in epidemiologic research. VER Inc, Charlottetown
Abdollah F, Novara G, Briganti A et al (2011) Trans-rectal versus trans-perineal saturation rebiopsy of the prostate: is there a difference in cancer detection rate? Urology 77:921–925
D’Amico AV, Chen MH, Catalona WJ et al (2007) Prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy in men with 1 or more high-risk factors. Cancer 110:56–61
Taneja SS, Penson DF, Epelbaum A et al (1999) Does site specific labeling of sextant biopsy cores predict the site of extracapsular extension in radical prostatectomy surgical specimen? J Urol 162:1352–1357
Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, Laheij RJ et al (2002) Local staging of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 12:2294–2302
Schieda N, Quon JS, Lim C et al (2015) Evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) PI-RADS scoring system for assessment of extra-prostatic extension in prostatic carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 84:1843–1848
Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron D, Carroll P et al (2008) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: present and future. Curr Opin Urol 18:71–77
Green DA, Osterberg EC, Xylinas E et al (2012) Predictive tools for prostate cancer staging, treatment response and outcomes. Arch Esp Urol 65:787–807
Glasziou P (2001) Which methods for bedside Bayes? Evid Based Med 6:164–166